Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 May 2023 14:49:31 +0100 | From | Conor Dooley <> | Subject | Re: Bug report: kernel paniced when system hibernates |
| |
Alex, Anup,
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 07:34:16PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 5:39 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr> wrote: > > On 5/18/23 08:53, Anup Patel wrote: > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 8:26 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > >> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 1:28 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote: > > >>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:58:02AM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote: > > >>>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 1:12 PM Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com> wrote: > > >>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:24 AM Song Shuai <suagrfillet@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> I actually removed this flag a few years ago, and I have to admit that > > >>>>> I need to check if that's necessary: the goal of commit 3335068f8721 > > >>>>> ("riscv: Use PUD/P4D/PGD pages for the linear mapping") is to expose > > >>>>> the "right" start of DRAM so that we can align virtual and physical > > >>>>> addresses on a 1GB boundary. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So I have to check if a nomap region is actually added as a > > >>>>> memblock.memory.regions[] or not: if yes, that's perfect, let's add > > >>>>> the nomap attributes to the PMP regions, otherwise, I don't think that > > >>>>> is a good solution. > > >>>> So here is the current linear mapping without nomap in openSBI: > > >>>> > > >>>> ---[ Linear mapping ]--- > > >>>> 0xff60000000000000-0xff60000000200000 0x0000000080000000 2M > > >>>> PMD D A G . . W R V > > >>>> 0xff60000000200000-0xff60000000e00000 0x0000000080200000 12M > > >>>> PMD D A G . . . R V > > >>>> > > >>>> And below the linear mapping with nomap in openSBI: > > >>>> > > >>>> ---[ Linear mapping ]--- > > >>>> 0xff60000000080000-0xff60000000200000 0x0000000080080000 1536K > > >>>> PTE D A G . . W R V > > >>>> 0xff60000000200000-0xff60000000e00000 0x0000000080200000 12M > > >>>> PMD D A G . . . R V > > >>>> > > >>>> So adding nomap does not misalign virtual and physical addresses, it > > >>>> prevents the usage of 1GB page for this area though, so that's a > > >>>> solution, we just lose this 1GB page here. > > >>>> > > >>>> But even though that may be the fix, I think we also need to fix that > > >>>> in the kernel as it would break compatibility with certain versions of > > >>>> openSBI *if* we fix openSBI...So here are a few solutions: > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. we can mark all "mmode_resv" nodes in the device tree as nomap, > > >>>> before the linear mapping is established (IIUC, those nodes are added > > >>>> by openSBI to advertise PMP regions) > > >>>> -> This amounts to the same fix as opensbi and we lose the 1GB hugepage. > > >>> AFAIU, losing the 1 GB hugepage is a regression, which would make this > > >>> not an option, right? > > >> Not sure this is a real regression, I'd rather avoid it, but as > > >> mentioned in my first answer, Mike Rapoport showed that it was making > > >> no difference performance-wise... > > >> > > >>>> 2. we can tweak pfn_is_nosave function to *not* save pfn corresponding > > >>>> to PMP regions > > >>>> -> We don't lose the 1GB hugepage \o/ > > >>>> 3. we can use register_nosave_region() to not save the "mmode_resv" > > >>>> regions (x86 does that > > >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/arch/x86/kernel/e820.c#L753) > > >>>> -> We don't lose the 1GB hugepage \o/ > > >>>> 4. Given JeeHeng pointer to > > >>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/kernel/power/snapshot.c#L1340, > > >>>> we can mark those pages as non-readable and make the hibernation > > >>>> process not save those pages > > >>>> -> Very late-in-the-day idea, not sure what it's worth, we also > > >>>> lose the 1GB hugepage... > > >>> Ditto here re: introducing another regression. > > >>> > > >>>> To me, the best solution is 3 as it would prepare for other similar > > >>>> issues later, it is similar to x86 and it allows us to keep 1GB > > >>>> hugepages. > > >>>> > > >>>> I have been thinking, and to me nomap does not provide anything since > > >>>> the kernel should not address this memory range, so if it does, we > > >>>> must fix the kernel. > > >>>> > > >>>> Let me know what you all think, I'll be preparing a PoC of 3 in the meantime! > > >>> #3 would probably get my vote too. It seems like you could use it > > >>> dynamically if there was to be a future other provider of "mmode_resv" > > >>> regions, rather than doing something location-specific. > > >>> > > >>> We should probably document these opensbi reserved memory nodes though > > >>> in a dt-binding or w/e if we are going to be relying on them to not > > >>> crash! > > > Depending on a particular node name is fragile. If we really need > > > information from DT then I suggest adding "no-save-restore" DT > > > property in reserved memory nodes. > > > > > > I understand your point, the node name is the only thing I found that > > would work with current opensbi: any other idea what we could use instead? > > > > > > >> Yes, you're right, let's see what Atish and Anup think! > > > I think we have two possible approaches: > > > > > > 1) Update OpenSBI to set "no-map" DT property for firmware > > > reserved regions. We were doing this previously but removed > > > it later for performance reasons mentioned by Alex. It is also > > > worth mentioning that ARM Trusted Firmware also sets "no-map" > > > DT property for firmware reserved regions. > > > > > > 2) Add a new "no-save-restore" DT property in the reserved > > > memory DT bindings. The hibernate support of Linux arch/riscv > > > will use this DT property to exclude memory regions from > > > save-restore. The EFI implementation of EDK2 and U-Boot > > > should do the following: > > > 1) Treat all memory having "no-map" DT property as EFI > > > reserved memory > > > 2) Treat all memory not having "no-map" DT property and > > > not having "no-save-restore" DT property as EfiBootServicesData > > > 3) Treat all memory not having "no-map" DT property and > > > having "no-save-restore" DT property as EfiRuntimeServiceData > > > (Refer, > > > https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter3-devicenodes.html#reserved-memory-and-uefi) > > > > > > Personally, I am leaning towards approach#1 since approach#2 > > > will require changing DeviceTree specification as well. > > > > > > If needed, indeed #1 is the simplest, but I insist, to me it is not > > needed (and we don't have it in the current opensbi), if you have > > another opinion, I'm open to discuss it! > > I agree with you, backward compatibility with older firmwares > is important. > > Let's go with your proposed change to treat reserved DT nodes > with "mmode_resv*" name as M-mode firmware memory (it could > be any M-mode firmware). We will certainly need to document it > somewhere as an expectation of Linux RISC-V kernel.
Actually, you two both probably know the answer to this, but was there a release done of OpenSBI where the reserved memory region was not specified to be no-map?
> > @Sunil How about treating "mmode_resv*" as > EfiRuntimeServiceData in EDK2 ? Other reserved memory > nodes can follow the device tree specification.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |